An unholy alliance of feminists, cops, and conservatives hurts women in the name of defending their rights.

What happens when people in the sex trade—the people these laws
supposedly are meant to protect—push back? Anti-trafficking
activists often respond by denying their existence. At the June
anti-Backpage protest, I watched Norma Ramos’ staff distribute
fliers to passers-by cautioning them against the very term sex
work, a phrase that “completely masks the physical, psychological,
and sexual violence inflicted on prostituted persons,” although
they had to acknowledge “it is a term that women in prostitution
themselves use and prefer.”

If this semantic debate seems a bit arcane for placards and
fliers, the purpose was revealed 15 feet further down the sidewalk,
where members of the Sex Workers Outreach Project New York
(SWOP-NYC), a volunteer-based, grassroots group dedicated to
improving the lives of sex workers, held a quiet counter-protest.
SWOP members—current and former sex workers among them—greeted New
Yorkers on their way through Greenwich Village with smiles and
fliers, inviting them to throw their support behind the people who
had real expertise on the sex industry. That day the police
repeatedly instructed SWOP members to stay half a block away from
Ramos’ people. They made no such demands of Ramos.

Feminists, Cops, and Conservatives

An article in the August issue of Marie Claire follows Andrea
Powell, executive director of Free Aware Inspired Restored (FAIR)
Girls, as she trolls Backpage for classified sex ads she suspects
were placed by or for minors: “Putting in an earbud and picking up
her pink-and-black Kate Spade-encased iPhone to dial a local police
officer, Powell says urgently, ‘We have to report her now.’ ” But
when the cops set up a sting operation against the advertiser, the
story continues, “she said she was in fact an adult—and didn’t want
help from the police or anyone else.”

Some activists view calling the cops to “rescue” people from the
sex trade as the model of a successful human rights intervention.
They don’t count their victories by the number of people they help;
they count them by arrests.

These tactics are part of a rise in what Elizabeth Bern­stein
calls “carceral feminism”; Harvard law professor Janet Halley calls
it “governance feminism.” Feminists once offered a powerful
critique of the criminal justice system, but that argument has
faded as they have found power within it. Not surprisingly, they
have found conservative allies along the way.

In redefining sex work as an issue of bad men doing bad things
to enslaved young women, anti-prostitution activists have recast
themselves as liberators instead of scolds, while simultaneously
making their message more attractive to the social conservatives
who have at times distrusted them. The conservative Heritage
Foundation has taken up the cause of “fighting sex trafficking,”
though mostly as a way to beat up on the Obama administration and
the United Nations for not adopting even more punitive policy. The
Protect Innocence Initiative, a partnership between the
anti-prostitution Shared Hope International and the American Center
for Law & Justice (the right’s answer to the ACLU), gave a
presentation at the Values Voters Summit in Washington last
September touting the 40 bills it has persuaded state legislators
to introduce since December 2011. The title: “Can You Protect Your
Children From the Commercial Sex Industry?” Shared Hope
International’s director, former Rep. Linda Smith (R-Wash.),
explained to the Values Voters audience that they should “put this
issue in its proper position” alongside the anti-abortion
cause.

Donna M. Hughes, a professor of women’s studies at the
University of Rhode Island, who praised George W. Bush for
“put[ting] the fight against the global sex trade on par with the
campaign for democracy in Iraq and the war on terrorism,” is
another conservative-friendly voice in the anti−sex work chorus.
Hughes banged her own curious “women’s rights” drum in support of
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in a 2004 Washington Post op-ed,
co-written with second-wave feminist Phyllis Chesler, in which the
duo criticized feminists for not seeing that conservatives “could
be better allies on some issues than the liberal left has
been.”

Sex workers bear the brunt of this coalition’s preference for
using law enforcement to protect women’s rights. Increased
penalties for “sex trafficking,” supported by such groups as the
National Organization for Women New York (NOW-NYC) and the Chicago
Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation (CAASE) have led to
high-profile sting operations, such as a January 2012 bust in New
York snaring a reported “200 johns” and seized many of their
vehicles prior to arraignment. But demanding cops protect women by
“going after the johns” doesn’t exempt sex workers from arrest. A
2012 examination of prostitution-related felonies in Chicago
conducted by the Chicago Reporter revealed that of 1,266
convictions during the past four years, 97 percent of the charges
were made against sex workers, with a 68 percent increase between
2008 and 2011. This is during the same years that CAASE lobbied for
the Illinois Safe Children Act, meant to end the arrest of who the
bill describes as “prostituted persons” and to instead target
“traffickers” and buyers through wiretaps and stings. Since the
Act’s passage in 2010, only three buyers have been charged with a
felony. These feminist-supported, headline-grabbing stunts subject
young women to the humiliation of jail, legal procedures, and
tracking through various law enforcement databases, sometimes for
the rest of their lives.

“It’s fascinating that women who claim to be feminists” are so
willing to use the law in this way, says Ann Jordan. Supporting
anti-prostitution enforcement requires them to call in the muscle
of “all these institutions that have oppressed women forever,” she
notes. “But they are willing to use the law to coerce a particular
kind of behavior from women.”

As a staff attorney at the Sex Workers Project at the Urban
Justice Center, Melissa Broudo deals with the aftermath of
crackdowns like the one in New York last winter. Broudo is one of
the few lawyers who works to vacate the sentences of people who
have been trafficked and who have been convicted of prostitution
charges. “The hardest piece I’ve dealt with,” Broudo says, “is
trying to represent individuals who don’t fit the model. They
aren’t a 12-year-old girl, or whatever the portrayal is. Men can be
trafficked. Trans women and trans men can be trafficked, and are
trafficked. Older women can be trafficked. I have clients who fall
within all different categories, but they [don’t match the
conventional] picture of trafficking.”

Oversimplified portrayals of trafficking can have devastating
consequences for those who are trafficked. “When I am vacating
prior convictions for survivors,” say Broudo, “I view it as a legal
hurdle if it’s someone who isn’t a cisgender [nontransgender]
female minor at the time. And it shouldn’t be that way.” Broudo
concedes that “you need people to understand that trafficking
exists.” But she adds that “awareness isn’t enough, and awareness
campaigns can have negative consequences. When somebody like
[New York Times columnist] Nicholas Kristof writes an
article about shutting down Backpage or applauding law enforcement
efforts, it creates this picture that the answer is criminalization
and punishment, and then people think we need to arrest more
people, and that’s incredibly detrimental. And unfortunately, when
there is more money and a mandate for arrests, that will often
result in sex workers who may or may not have been forced into sex
work being arrested.”

Sex-worker activists have long voiced this concern, not to
protect the sex industry (as anti-prostitution campaigners claim)
but to protect themselves from the violence of arrest and the
violence that results from widespread social stigma and
discrimination. Defenders of sex workers’ rights want to stop those
arrests, while the feminists who should be their natural allies are
pushing for more.

‘Sack of Bones on Gilgo Beach’

Between 2010 and 2011, the remains of 10 people, many identified
as sex workers, were found on Long Island’s Gilgo Beach. New York
sex workers, including SWOP members, responded by reaching out to
the families of the victims, attending vigils, and providing
support to one another. Networks such as these are strong among sex
workers, who cannot rely on cops, courts, or other institutions
most people can turn to in times of crisis.

NOW-NYC’s response to these murders, still unsolved, came in a
letter from its president, Sonia Ossorio, to the New
York Daily News. Against the backdrop of NOW’s campaign
to increase stings and raids in the sex trade, Ossorio complained
that the paper was out of bounds for running a column
questioning the public good in keeping prostitution illegal. She
closed her letter by invoking the murdered women who “ended up as
sacks of bones on Gilgo Beach.” For Ossorio, these women’s deaths
are a justification for prohibition rather than a wake-up call to
the dangers that prohibition creates.

It is not sex work that exposes sex workers to violence; it is
our willingness to abandon sex workers to violence in an attempt to
control their behavior. Prohibition makes prostitution more
dangerous than it would otherwise be by pushing it underground and
stripping sex workers of legal protection. The fight over that
policy is about more than just strains between generations of
feminism. It is about an unholy marriage of feminism with the
conservatism and police power that many feminists claim to stand
against.

Advocates for sex workers are making some headway in calling
that alliance to account. In 2011, for the first time, sex-worker
activists participated in the U.N. Universal Periodic Review of
Human Rights (UPR), a review of all member states’ human rights
records conducted each four years. It was also the first year that
the U.S. government’s record on human rights was up for U.N.
review.

Activist Darby Hickey, a transgender woman who has been involved
in the sex trade and is currently an analyst at the Best Practices
Policy Project, which defends sex worker rights, participated in
the U.N. evaluation. Its findings reinforced what sex workers have
been reporting for decades: American sex workers are vulnerable to
discrimination and violence not simply because of their work but
because of the ways institutions exclude and harm them. The United
States signed on to UPR recommendations that “no one should face
violence or discrimination in access to public services based on
sexual orientation or their status as a person in
prostitution.”

“Now we’ll see what they do with that,” Hickey says, “and what
steps they take to address violence from law enforcement and
systemic violence.” When it comes to criminalization and the prison
system, Hickey says, “there’s a general recognition that we’re
going in the wrong direction, but around prostitution it’s going in
the opposite direction, where people are saying, ‘Arrest more
people; increase penalties.’ ” Just as the war on drugs is in many
ways a war on black people, Hickey says, the war on prostitution is
a war on sex workers.

If we are going to call attacks on reproductive and sexual
rights a “war on women,” then let’s talk about a war on women that
has actual prisoners and a body count. It’s a war on the women
engaged in sex work, waged by women who will not hesitate to use
their opponents’ corpses as political props but refuse to listen to
them while they are still alive and still here to fight.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Nope. Not waving my flag. I don't care if it is unpopular or
not, telling people to pay for their own shit is the morally right
thing to do. And I'll keep doing it no matter how many statist
shitheads insist otherwise.

you are correct in being outnumbered. That was my takeaway from
the election, too. And states are the new battlegrounds. Maybe
closer to home, fiscal conservatives and proponents of limited govt
will act like it rather than talk about it. If they could just
convince their legislative brethren to stop with the social
stuff.

While the United States Constitution's First Amendment
identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government,
the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a
right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court
held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an
essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases,
people can engage in effective speech only when they join with
others.

Other than the now-antiquated sodomy laws, most 'reproductive
rights' come under commerce. It is more often the right to sell
goods and services that impinges on the right to freely assemble in
private for the purposes of conjugation.

Those goods and services being things like condoms, diaphragms,
abortion, contraceptive pills, IUDs, HPV vaccine, norplant, etc...
Also related are dildoes, vibrators, clamps, whips, chains, rubber
dolls, Luther Vandross records.... And sex services like
prostitution and "erotic massage"... All of which the state has
seen fit to regulate and/or outlaw both here and abroad.

Rather, I am talking about rights that everyone understands. You
have a right to speak, but not a right to force people to
listen.

You have the right to derive pleasure from rubbing bits of your
body against bits of another person's body, but not a right to
force other people to present the bits that you desire so that you
can pleasure yourself etc.

You have a right to scream, but that doesn't mean someone must
supply you with a mouth. You have a right to have babies, but no
right to force the Romans to provide you with a womb, etc.

Once something is a 'right,' that should instantly deprive you
of the demand that someone else pay for it.*

*Yes, yes, the right to paid defense council is considered a
right, but that is only after the gubmint has taken an affirmative
action against you. Similarly, the right to be compensated for the
confiscation of your property.

Adding to this: The right to defense counsel is an extension of
your right to not be locked in a cage without due process. The
right to be compensated for a taking of your property is an
extension of your right not to have someone steal your stuff.

In both cases a 'right' has been created to compensate for the
state's violation of your natural rights.

Can one person's "rights" really be exercised at another
person's expense (are "reproductive rights" actual rights when some
of the parties demanding those rights also demand that they be
funded out of the public treasury)?

Not at all. It's more like saying "I have a right to free
speech, therefore I should be given a radio station." Or I have a
right to be secure in my property and effects (I know, the 4th
Amendment is dead letter but for the sake of argument), so Uncle
Sam should build a vault under my house for me to put them in.

Sorry I misread your question. I meant to say that these were
still rights even though other people do want someone else
to pay for them. So reproductive rights are still rights regardless
of the paid-for BC bullshit, just as free speech is still a right
regardless of people who want internet access for free and shit
like that.

Can one person's "rights" really be exercised at
another person's expense (are "reproductive rights" actual rights
when some of the parties demanding those rights also demand that
they be funded out of the public treasury)?

It's got nothing to do with reproduction. I don't think anyone
has reproductive rights. That's almost like "income rights" or
"financial rights" or something. You don't have a right to a
specific end result.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't that exactly what
happened in China? Forced sterilization and requiring permits from
the govt to have a child? I understand that you are saying it is
biology not something associated with the law of the land, but it
can be curtailed.

That said, i feel the reproductive rights libs refer to
generally are bullshit and mostly about what others are required to
pay for their choices.

Bullshit. Using the term "rights" doesn't let the opponent set
the terms, unless you REALLY think there's no such thing as rights.
The right to to control your own body covers reproduction just as
much as it does drugs or anything else a person wants to do with
themselves. Stop your pointless whining that everyone doesn't agree
what a "right" is. The concept of "rights" is used in both moral
and legal frameworks ("inalienable rights"). Talking to you about
rights is like talking to T o n y.

That wasn't a defense, it was an accurate description of how you
talk about rights. As if you've never heard the concept of
"positive rights", and can only conceive of "rights" as being
"whatever people want to have". Just like T o n y.

If you just want to stop using the word "rights", you're
basically conceding the argument to them, because they'll STILL use
the term rights to describe it. The more you let them get away with
inaccurate wording, the more you're conceding the idea that a
"right" is simply whatever they want it to mean, rather than an
inalienable freedom inherent in people.

You do have the right to control your reproductive system, it's
free, it's always available. It's called self-control. The
expression of your reproductive system, however, is not free. Nor
is evacuating your bowels or bladder wherever you wish, whenever
you wish. We human beings live in a system. We are group creatures
and thus the 'expression' of our bodies has rules. In this case,
the rule applies to the biological byproduct of reproduction, the
human child. It is not good for society to train women to kill
their children as a reproductive 'choice.'It's as bad as the worst
virus, just ask those countries that are poised on the brink of
negative population growth but which cannot convince their ruined
women to reproduce again (includes Iran, by the way). That's the
reason some people don't want to pay for it,contraception or
abortion, because it's wrong, not because they don't want insurance
to cover, say, your inflammed tonsils.Because it's wrong for
society.

We humans have never had the 'right' to express everything we
wanted to regarding our own bodies, or our own minds. We are not
gods.

Jan: I get it. You don't want to pay for abortions or birth
control. But the solution is not to curtail everyone else's
personal freedoms in the name of arbitrary values. People are going
to have sex, they're gonna look for sex if they're willing to pay
for it, and we might as well let them do it in a legal controlled
environment, rather than the more dangerous option of forcing them
into an underground black market.

Eh, I mean not to get all "no true Scotsman", but individualist
feminism isn't feminism, but just plain old libertarian ethics of
self ownership and equal protection under the law. It's like the
"libertarian socialists". Yes a voluntary association of wealth
redistribution is libertarian, but that's not what socialism is, in
the main. Some words have a meaning in the current social context
which is not the meaning they technically have or perhaps should
have. The best example of that is "liberalism" now a hundred odd
years later meaning the exact opposite of what it used to mean.

There are sex positive feminists and they are NOT stupid. They
understand that a womans self-determination is only realized when
every option of life-style- provided that its not a predatory one,
is available as a choice- That includes the right to be a
stay-at-home-mom without peer prosecution, AND the right to trade
sex and companionship for money, and every choice in between. The
Steinam breed of feminist degrades women with a "we know what's
best for you honey" type of attitude. Younger feminists seem in
many ways to be more libertarian minded.

I have never heard that said sincerely, though. It is always at
least partially tongue-in-cheek. This stupid cunt actually thinks
that prostitution is a "form of" rape, because "rape" to these
people now means any fucking that is unapproved.

Actually I think the most interesting thing about calling this
rape is, as always, the implicit connection to consent--why can
prostitution not be consensual? Now, think about why
consent is impossible in this case (as in so many others, where
rape and "feminists" are concerned), but why it is
possible WRT to the state...

I should also note I find this particularly hilarious since we
were just recently having a discussion about whether rapists should
be allowed to just offer some kind of payoff to their victim, and
whether the victim should then be able to stop criminal
prosecution.

The "All prostitution is sex slavery/human trafficking" people
are awful. There are people who are actually forced into
prostitution and pretending that all people who do sex for money
are in the same situation can only be making it worse for those who
have actually been forced into sexual slavery.

The "All prostitution is sex slavery/human trafficking"
people are awful.

Not to mention creepy. In one of Stossel's shows, he
invited ex-prosecutor Wendy Murphy who reiterated that prostitution
is forbidden in order to "protect" women from a life of
exploitation, even when confronted by Stossel's very valid point
that many women CHOSE to become prostitutes. She would have none of
that, saying that most women would never choose such a profession
(a contention presumably based on her ability to read minds) and so
they should be protected from such decisions. My skin just curled
by the thought that this woman used to prosecute people.

Another display of pure creepiness was when Stossel invited Lis
Wiehl to talk about the same subject, and the Petunia Pig-like
blonde just weaseled her way out of a coherent argument for
prohibition by saying "well, it's policy!"

He did - twice. In the first show (where Mrs. Murphy
appeared) she invited several girls from the Bunny Ranch. The
really creepy part is when Murphy responded to the girls'
objections to her possition with the collectivist retort "this
isn't about you." In the second part (with Lis Wiehl) he invited
one of the girls to be on the studio and even when she reassured
Mrs. Wiehl that she was more than happy with her decision, Lis
insisted with her "it's because it is the policy!" mantra.

I don't know, Hype, I am sure the mantle of loserdom could
easily be extended to include white males, on any number of
grievances. Plenty of the Occupy whining was done by just such a
demographic. The Oppression (Special) Olympics is a fast growing
sport for damn near everyone from what I can see.

I recall that back during the height of the OWS movement,
speakers saying things like 'minorities and women speak first,
white males to the back of the line'. I actually recall some even
saying that they didn't want white men in the movement at all,
especially older white males. So we have all sorts of racism and
sexism going on in the movement, and no one seemed to notice it,
except those outside of the movement.

Those males are not exactly what I would call men, or they
wouldn't put up with such bullshit just in order that they might
get lucky with some greasy hair OWS slut.

But I get your point. Some of the older white males around where
I live, are some of the most self-righteous, whiney ass, I'm a
victim, people on the planet.

I remember after hurricane Irene, the power was out for several
days. I was driving around trying to find a gas station that had
working pumps, like a lot of other folks.

I stopped at one because I saw someone inside and tried the
pumps, to no avail.

But this old guy, probably in his 60s, comes up to me, with sour
face and went off on a tirade about how all of this was the fault
of capitalists like BGE who don't care about people, only about
their profits.

I politely pointed out that BGE was not making money while the
electric was off and that they had crews, including from out of
state, working 24/7 to restore power, and that I think they
cared.

He didn't like that at all, scowled at me, and went off in a
huff, mumbling something about damn capitalist. That's when I saw
the Obama - Biden 2008 sticker on his car.

I see a lot more 2008 Obama stickers around here than I do the
2012 version. So my only guess as to why, is that the liberals were
waiting for their free were waiting for their sticker to arrive in
the mail, and for someone to come over and change it for them.

These battles were now being fought in the name of
combating "sexual exploitation," "sex trafficking," and "sex
slavery."

The above can only mean that the puritanical Statists have run out
of politically-correct excuses to keep victimizing women that way
and are now resorting to pure sophisty. Previously, the
State victimized female sex workers in the name of public health
and morality; now they victimize them in order to "save" them from
a fate presumably worse than being incarcerated and stigmatized for
life.

Marriage/monogamy is worse than institutionalized prostitution;
it's sexual monopolisation. Lawfully, the your supply of sex is
supposed to be restricted to a single supplier (your spouse), who
with this monopoly power can create, or limit, supply as they wish,
irrespective of your demand (you require 30 units of sex a month,
the spousal supplier is only willing to output 14 units of sex, so
you either just come up 16 units short, or figure out a way to make
up the difference, such as an alternate supplier or you "manually"
produce the units yourself).

“It’s fascinating that women who claim to be feminists [...] are
willing to use the law to coerce a particular kind of behavior from
women.”

Is it really? It's actually commonplace for illiberal
"progressives" to use the law to coerce individual behavior.

From mandating that we all pay into misguided "insurance"
schemes to mandating when and where we can exercise our rights to
free speech, self defense, and private property, or even to
regulating the size of beverage cups, nobody should be surprised.
It's not at all fascinating - it's disturbing to see it happening
again and again in a supposedly free country.

It's a freer country than Sweden or Hati. We aren't committing
"hate crimes" by saying what we do. The problem with the "I'm so
oppressed this is worse than Hitler" rants are that they prevent
people from taking action to defend our last few freedoms.

I would argue that free-by-comparison is really free, because
then all our government has to do is be slightly better than the
worst shithole on Earth to say "look at how free you are! In North
Korea, they only 9 grams of coffee a month, but here in America,
you get 10!"

Since no country or state takes a principled approach to
liberty, that really depends on what specific freedoms you value
most. So it's not quite clear cut. Also, the situation on the
ground can differ from legislation. Many have exploited holes of
freedoms in weaker states.

Reading around various suggestions about how to get you and/or
your assets out of Dodge, you'll see very commonly the 5 flags
approach, if not more flags

But it only takes so many Balko articles, so many Kelo
decisions, so many Obamacare decisions, so many trans fats or Four
Loko bans, so many bizarro Homeland Security overreaches, so many
kids' lemonade stand shutdowns by health departments, so much
warrantless wiretapping (that thankfully stopped under Obama) until
you stop believing it, or at least heavily qualify any statements
about this being a free country.

Just because one says it's not much a free country anymore,
doesn't mean that one thinks we're North Korea.

One place where the argument gets confused and conflated is the
"impressment" into prostitution versus the alleged enlightened pro
who gets thousands of dollars an hour to be in Vegas.

As libertarians, we have a bit of an issue when a 14-year-old
girl is basically raised in a shitty neighborhood and is more or
less effectively sold to the crack-dealer or madam down the street
to be turned out starting at the age of legal consent, and works as
a pro because that's all she ever has known.

"...make sure those women had the ability to seek help with
outside groups..."

The worst part of making prostitution illegal is that the women
are put outside of the protection of the law. Much of their
victimization could be eliminated if they could call the cops when
some shithead beats the crap out of them for fun.

Well again , if you have legal brothels where open access to
talk to the women is required it would certainly be much easier to
help those in the involuntarily situation. If you have one set of
legal regulated brothels that johns can go to without getting their
name and picture in the paper and another without that issue, you
can create a much safer work environment for those women.

The issue, to be a little more clear, is that (a) we relatively
speaking want parents to be able to raise their children how we
wish and (b) want the State to leave people who are "of age" alone
with their choices so long as they aren't harming others.

On a psychological level, I have a hard time saying that a pro
who has been doing it since she was 16 because she's hooked on
crank is doing it "voluntarily" and with full and robust
consent.

I am perpetually amazed at the things the state will and will
not involve itself in over parents. More than a few folks using
film have had to explain the pics of a two-year old playing in a
bathtub or get reported if not accosted for smacking little Johnny
in the ass at the store. Meanwhile, four kids on free lunch and no
one utters a peep.

We seem to have a problem with A, particularly where "how they
wish" crosses lines. Some folks just are not cut out to be
parents.

there is a huge disconnect between the state's standards on
paper and those standards in practice. Sorry, but multiple kids by
multiple fathers, all of plus you are now on the public dole, tells
me you have no business being a parent and that your sperm donors
are a crappy lot, too.

I doubt that there is a workable solution. No amount of money
could convince me to be in social work or child protective
services; how those folks don't kill some of their clientele is
award-winning levels of self-restraint. Getting far off topic, so
I'll stop by saying I'm with you on high standards but a sane
effort at enforcement would be nice.

Trust me, they don't wait two years before pimping her. I've
known case managers who have pulled 13-year-old strippers out of
strip clubs. Owners just say, "She showed me her ID and it said she
was 18.

One place where the argument gets confused and
conflated is the "impressment" into prostitution[...]

Who is confused? You? "Impressment" is initiation of force,
aggression, and a violation of the self-ownership principle. If
people conflate that with voluntary prostitution, then that is
their problem.

As libertarians, we have a bit of an issue when a
14-year-old girl is basically raised in a shitty neighborhood and
is more or less effectively sold to the crack-dealer or madam down
the street

What's with this we business, Kimosabe? Maybe you're the
one confused, but do not take all libertarians in your trip to the
bottom. If a person is sold into slavery, that's force, that's
aggression and a violation of the self-ownership principle. There's
no ambiguity here. What exactly are you talking about?

It really doesn't surprise me that you are incapable of
understanding the discussion. Your half-cocked malarkey is
indicative of the intellectual level at which you operate. I
explained myself perfectly well, to the point where others
understood. You're just looking to be Aggrieved because something
sounded vaguely unlibertarian (even though it's the exact
opposite).

I think these women have the liberty to live their lifestyle, to
sell themselves. But they aren't "sex workers." They're hoes. And
trannies should be treated as men, that's what they are,
biologically. And I really don't see why we should have sympathy
for these women. Last year I paid tens of thousands in taxes to
support their food stamps. Let's talk about that.

I actually agree with you. Just because it should be legal
doesn't mean we have to impart some kind of dignity on it. And
probably, if the movement to legalize whoring just fucking left it
at that and didn't try to cram a lot of PC terminology and free
shit down our throats, it would be a lot more palatable. Society is
going to continue to judge whores as whores, and that is fine.

Objecting to labeling prostitution as "exploitation," then
referring to it as "work" is hypocritical. It IS exploitation. It
is harmful to the women who participate in it, anyone in touch with
the American masses knows that. Anyone who understands biology
knows that, but biology is a dirty word around here. These people
are cosmatarians, simple as that. They promote their cultural
liberal view on this site. They should admit it.

No matter how loathsome you see it as, it is still a service
being offered, and supply will try to meet demand. Sounds like
another free market solution to me.

Lots of conservatives that I know condemn pot smokers and call
them worthless potheads, while they themselves would go to any
means necessary to keep their fridge full of beer, or their whiskey
cabinet full of the poison of their choice.

We can't advocate some personal liberties and restrict others.
That is what progressives do.

Hyperion, I see it as: in a libertarian society, heroin would be
legal. Yet, junk and junkies would still be disgusting to most of
us. Same with beastophiles, crackheads and married siblings.

I don't particularly agree with generalizing about prostitutes
since there are probably a lot of different types and motivations.
A full GFE escort seeking a little extra cash to help herself
through school is a little different from the methhead on the
corner by the burnt out $10 flea motel.

And athletes can make money running and throwing balls around.
Models and strippers make money solely on the basis of their
bodies. If you have a natural talent, why not cash in? Not that
it's the wisest life decision or career, but under certain
circumstances I could understand it, especially if you enjoy the
work.

Hyperion, I see it as: in a libertarian society, heroin
would be legal. Yet, junk and junkies would still be disgusting to
most of us. Same with beastophiles, crackheads and married
siblings.

I agree with this, but it is not that which I am opposed to,
it's the state getting involved that I strongly object to. I think
most folks know that heroin is bad for them, but I don't think the
cure is to throw them into prison, or even to fine them.

I think prostitution is a "loathsome industry" the same way the
liquor industry used to be a "loathsome industry". I don't think
there's anything inherently unsavory about paying or being paid for
sex, it's the criminalization of it that makes the prostitution
environment terrible.

I don't think anyone is saying that you don't have a right to
have that opinion, or that anyone is even trying to change your
opinion.

We are just saying that, ok, you don't like it, but it's both
the payer and the payees right to engage in a mutual transaction.
If we make it criminal to do so, we are basically saying that you
do not own your own body. It's no different that the WOD.

What part of having sex for money is immoral? That's all
prostitution it. You claim to have a problem with prostitution in
itself. It's hard to to come to a different conclusion about your
issue with it.

16. Then Ambapali the courtesan came to know: "The
Blessed One, they say, has arrived at Vesali and is now staying in
my Mango Grove." And she ordered a large number of magnificent
carriages to be made ready, mounted one of them herself, and
accompanied by the rest, drove out from Vesali towards her park.
She went by carriage as far as the carriage could go, then
alighted; and approaching the Blessed One on foot, she respectfully
greeted him and sat down at one side. And the Blessed One
instructed Ambapali the courtesan in the Dhamma and roused,
edified, and gladdened her.

17. Thereafter Ambapali the courtesan spoke to the Blessed One,
saying: "May the Blessed One, O Lord, please accept my invitation
for tomorrow's meal, together with the community of bhikkhus." And
by his silence the Blessed One consented.

Sure, then, of the Blessed One's consent, Ambapali the courtesan
rose from her seat, respectfully saluted him, and keeping her right
side towards him, took her departure...

16. Then Ambapali the courtesan came to know: "The
Blessed One, they say, has arrived at Vesali and is now staying in
my Mango Grove." And she ordered a large number of magnificent
carriages to be made ready, mounted one of them herself, and
accompanied by the rest, drove out from Vesali towards her park.
She went by carriage as far as the carriage could go, then
alighted; and approaching the Blessed One on foot, she respectfully
greeted him and sat down at one side. And the Blessed One
instructed Ambapali the courtesan in the Dhamma and roused,
edified, and gladdened her.

2. Thereafter the Licchavis spoke to the Blessed One,
saying: "May the Blessed One, O Lord, please accept our invitation
for tomorrow's meal, together with the community of
bhikkhus."

"The invitation for tomorrow's meal, Licchavis, has been accepted
by me from Ambapali the courtesan."

Then the Licchavis snapped their fingers in annoyance: "See,
friends! We are defeated by this mango lass! We are utterly outdone
by this mango lass!" And then the Licchavis, approving of the
Blessed One's words and delighted with them, rose from their seats,
respectfully saluted him, and keeping their right sides towards
him, took their departure.

Aww you poor little baby, aggrieved by those meanie nihilistic
cosmotarians and their stinky liberal social views. How dare they
have different values from you, especially on their own site that
you choose to keep going to.

Do you want a lollipop? Maybe that will make your boo-boo feel
all better.

At least you admit it's a cosmo site. They (the people who run
it) don't ever admit it. They claim to be libertarian and for some
reason there is a perception of libertarians as "republicans with
herpes. Wonder why...

P.S. I only come to this site for the comments and the
occasional good economic stuff, my favorite site is Taki's
Magazine.

What about "cosmotarianism" is any less libertarian than
homophobic, racist (Taki's blog? jesus fuck)
paleoyokeltarianism?

"and for some reason there is a perception of libertarians as
"republicans with herpes. Wonder why..."

I thought your schtick was that we're all a bunch of
cocktail-swilling, politically correct wannabe Democrats with a
decent grasp of economics? So now we're making libertarians look
like Republicans with herpes? I'm so confused.

Actually, there are many pain patients that take a shitload of
opiates everyday and lead normal lives. Some are bedridden by pain,
but many work jobs, have families, and are generally productive. If
they didn't have opiates for a few hours they would be in extreme
pain and be very sick.

The junkies problems are usually from the paucity of supply.
Heroin is a very cheap drug to produce and could be made by the ton
if legal. If it were legal, the addict could judge doses for
different parts of their day with accuracy and assurance of
dose.

The addicts that I have known have mostly had jobs and would try
to do small amounts before work to keep away the heeby-jeebies and
would do a larger dose at night to actually get high, but when you
are unsure of the strength this can be difficult.

All of which you said is true, except it whistles past the point
that most people, when addicted to a perfectly legal drug (alcohol)
are more often not, not leading very stable lives.

The legality of a substance will make a difference in the
paucity of the supply-- except when it doesn't. Ie, there are
plenty of rich folks that get addicted to illegal substances and
due to their resources and connections, are able to get it regular
intervals and relatively predictable strenghts-- yet at some point,
they'll voluntarily seek rehab, suggesting that they weren't
entirely happy being addicted.

Unfortunately, this discussion is almost always confused with
the desire to make or keep these substances illegal.

One can occupy both points of view at the same time: Drugs
should be legal. Being addicted to legal drugs may not be a day at
the park.

I see legalized prostitution in a similar light. Making a thing
legal doesn't imbue it with a magickness that makes it a good
choice. It just removes the uglier black-market side effects--
which are alas, usually worse than anything that occurs when it's
made legal.

Being addicted to anything, legal or not, sucks. I just wanted
to dispel some of the notion that somehow the drugs we're taught to
be very afraid of aren't the demons portrayed.

Ironically, I'd say that the drug that does the most damage to
one's life and family is alcohol, the legal choice. To put in terms
related to life: if heroin were legal, and I was hiring for a
position, in general I'd chose the junky over the alcoholic.

Being addicted to anything, legal or not, sucks. I just
wanted to dispel some of the notion that somehow the drugs we're
taught to be very afraid of aren't the demons portrayed.

I certainly agree that heroin, made safe, legal and rare is not
the demon street heroin is. Just not sure I'd want to be addicted
to it.

To put in terms related to life: if heroin were legal, and I
was hiring for a position, in general I'd chose the junky over the
alcoholic.

See, I'm not sure about that.

I know functioning alcoholics. Most are perfectly reliable
people, and some are more reliable and predictable than their
square counterparts.

I've known some people who had drug problems-- most of which
were addicted to legal drugs (prescription). While they're not
anywhere close to the street junky most of us are familiar with, I
don't put them in the same functional camp as the alcoholics.

"... it should be blatantly obvious....statist "cures" are far
worse...".

It is. However, making things better is not the goal of the
statist.

Using arguments of reason, logic and fact is pointless against
prohibitionists because their opposition is not based on reason,
logic or fact. In the same way you will never get anywhere arguing
with a statist by pointing out that their proposed solutions are
worse than the status quo.

Yeah and those are frustrating conversations. So we need to
destroy peoples lives by sending them to prison so that they don't
make what you consider to be bad choices? And you're not willing to
try any alternative to prohibition even though you admit it's not
working? Ok then.

Feminists hate competition. If there is prostitution, maybe men
wouldn't put up with their crap. But at the same time I could see
their point. It IS exploitation. These women are not enlightened
rational actors providing a service in a wonderful capitalist
paradise. They are poor, drug addicted, disease ridden women. We
should condemn them whenever the subject comes up even as we argue
for their rights, especially when they reproduce and raise their
children up to live in that lifestyle. They are why I gave money to
Project Prevention.

You are all wrong. I don't know what "large city" you talk about
but in the vast majority of prostitutes in non-1% areas are poor,
miserable people. They probably don't even know what capitalism is.
If your view of the world comes from what you see on some show, you
are not worth saving. These workers would never form guilds. They'd
still be miserable, it's an issue of supply and demand, as well as
an issue of low-IQ.

The actions of any one, or even of all pimps together,
cannot legitimately be used to condemn the profession qua
profession, unless the action is a necessary part of the
profession. Now the profession of kidnapping small children for
ransom is an evil profession, qua profession. Even though some
kidnappers may perform good deeds, such as contributing a part of
the ransom to charity, or even if all of them do so, the profession
does not thereby become less of an abomination, because the action
which defines it is evil. If the action which defines the
profession of pimping were evil, then it should be condemned also.
In order to evaluate pimping, any extraneous evil acts which may be
committed by some pimps must be ignored as having little to do with
the profession as such.
The function of the pimp qua pimp is that of a broker. In the same
way as do brokers of real estate, insurance, stock market shares,
investments, commodity futures, etc., the pimp serves the function
of bringing together two parties to a transaction at less cost than
it would take to bring them together without his good offices. Each
party to a transaction served by a broker gains from the brokerage,
otherwise they would not patronize him.

And so it is in the case of the pimp. The customer is
spared useless or wasteful waiting and searching time. It is easier
to phone a pimp for an assignation with a prostitute than to spend
time and effort searching one out. The customer also has the
security of knowing that the prostitute comes recommended.
The prostitute benefits too. She gains the time that would
otherwise be spent in searching for the customer. She is also
protected by the pimp—from undesirable customers, and from
policemen, part of whose profession, qua profession, is to prevent
prostitutes from engaging in voluntary trade with consenting
adults. Assignations arranged by the pimp afford the prostitute
additional physical security over street walking or bar
hopping.

I said very explicitly that I disagree with the notion that
violence is "extraneous" to pimping. I have said that from the
beginning: clearly and consistently.

Where you get this weird notion that you're "winning" and you
get to spike the ball is beyond me. I am saying nothing different
than what I said at the beginning: the violence is inherent in the
act of pimping as practiced.

I said very explicitly that I disagree with the notion that
violence is "extraneous" to pimping.

And you're wrong about that. What about Madams at Nevada
brothels? They don't engage in violence, generally. But they
provide the same services as pimps in black markets. It's the black
market aspect that necessitates the violence, not the
profession.

This is commonly called "pimping". By claiming this as something
separate from "pimping" you miss the point entirely that the act of
being a "middleman for poon", otherwise known as "pimping", is not
something loathsome in itself. The acts that come of prostitutes
having no protection under the law which are associated with
illegal pimping are loathsome, but saying those acts are inherently
an aspect of pimping is incorrect.

I am very explicitly saying that pimping necessarily
involves keeping your girls in line through violent
ends.

Except that pimping DOESN'T necessarily involve using violence,
since the act of pimping itself is just being a "middleman for
poon". The acts of violence by these people in a criminal
environment don't reflect on the act of pimping itself any more
than the acts of violence by drug cartels reflect on the acts of
making and selling drugs.

That's it's definition as well.

No, it's not. From Merriam-Webster:

pimp
noun \ˈpimp\
Definition of PIMP: a man who solicits clients for a
prostitute

You can try to separate the facts from the theory, and
that's fine, but pimping as it is practiced is a
loathsome profession.

As it is practiced. That isn't something about the act
of pimping itself any more than criminal violence by drug cartels
is about the making and selling of drugs. Reprehensible conduct in
support of a profession is NOT the same thing as the profession
itself.

Also, please be aware that I said "most pimping" at the
very beginning of this thread, and have reiterated that
statement.

Again, acts of violence in support of the profession is not the
same thing as saying that the profession in itself is bad. That
it's "most pimping" rather than just "pimping" supports rather than
undermines my argument.

Reprehensible conduct in support of a profession is NOT
the same thing as the profession itself.

If you want to find me a pimp who doesn't have to resort to
violence to ensure s/he gets paid, by all means, go ahead, but the
courts are not available as a recourse, so what is it you think
they are doing to get paid? Begging?

Because they associate the act of pimping itself with the acts
of violence done by pimps in a criminalized setting, thus setting
the tone in regard to the usage of the word "pimp". The same thing
happens with the term "drug dealer". Block's point was that this
was an incorrect way of looking at it.

It's not about trying to "retake" the word, it already means
what we believe it means. It's about the way the word is used to
further delegitimize prostitution and the other professions
supporting it as a way to convince the public it should be illegal.
Boiling the word "pimp" down to it's constituent parts shows that's
it's no different from other economic interactions, not a boogeyman
to be stuffed in prison cells.

The same struggle of rhetoric is happening with drugs. The book
being quoted above uses similar arguments for drug dealers, loan
sharks, and others.

OM said "Liberty" said they are "precluded from making
commercial decisions", which he very clearly did not. "Liberty"
said they have all the right in the world to do what they do, but
we shouldn't pretend they are Hollywood-glamorized genius
businesswomen or some such.

I could quibble on the "enlightened" part, but OM seems to be
saying that we shouldn't morally or ethically concern ourselves
with decisions that are reached by adults because...adulthood!, and
that's just fallacious. I can every concern in the world that poor,
ill-educated, disease-addled drug freaks are spreading their legs
for $5. That isn't really my vision of capitalism, not that I would
use force to implement it.

There comes a point where it's OK to morally judge the actions
of others as questionable, wanting, or in some other way deficient.
I find a teeming underclass that is drug-addled and sick that sells
itself for sick to be one of those times where it's OK to say "hey,
wait, something isn't right here".

We can't look at tax records or census data to find out how many
prostitutes are low-income, drug-addicted, or left-handed.
Anti-prostitution organizations have scary numbers, but sex
workers' rights organizations take issue with their estimates.

We don't really know.

I get that you don't like prostitutes, because SLUT SLUT WHORE
UNCLEAN and all that. But how do you know?

Another thing is that there is certainly a continuum between
"it's on the nightstand" and absolutely no money changing hands
whatsoever. If I buy a girl dinner, and we end up in bed, does that
make her a whore? We don't really need to get into the economics of
marriage, but they're certainly an interesting topic.

There's plenty of women who meet a married man a couple nights a
week, and just coincidentally they live in an apartment he pays for
or drive a car he leases. They're not a whore though, they're a
"mistress" or a "kept woman".

I know of one guy who picks the au pair he and his wife hire
every summer, and his wife is either ok with it or totally
oblivious. Lucky bastard.

When that happens, instead of the problems with the underbelly
of trafficking or coercion, which as tarran rightfully quoted are
NOT inherent in the profession, these are the kind of "problems"
you face instead:

Upscale Munich brothel Pascha
complained this week that its competitors are stifling business
during the lucrative Oktoberfest season by paying taxi drivers
large sums to bring customers to their establishments
instead.

Prostitutes in one of Brazil's biggest cities are
beginning to sign up for free English classes ahead of this year's
Confederations Cup and the 2014 World Cup.

Cida Vieira, president of the Association of Prostitutes in
the city of Belo Horizonte, said Tuesday that 20 have already
signed up for the courses and she expects at least 300 of the
group's 4,000 members to follow suit.

These women are not enlightened rational actors
providing a service in a wonderful capitalist
paradise.

Which women? There's a difference between using force and
coercion to make a woman prostitute herself, and becoming a
prostitute by choice. Even if you do NOT agree with the decision,
it is still as enlightened and rational a decision as any other we
make every day.

They are poor, drug addicted, disease ridden
women.

Again, who are they? And another question: How is placing
them in jail to be brutalized or humiliated supposed to help
them?

Another very important question: How does having a disease or an
addiction preclude one from making commercial decisions? When I
have a cold, I am not placed in jail for going to work or selling
my old jacket on e-Bay, nor does my disease preclude me from making
those decisions; when I drink cola - and I am addicted to cola - I
am not placed in jail for then mowing someone else's grass or
having a garage sale. So why would it be different if I decided (if
I were a woman) to sell sex?

"Even if you do NOT agree with the decision, it is still as
enlightened and rational a decision as any other we make every
day."
Depends on your definition of enlightened and rational. If these
people were as smart as any of us they would not be prostituting
themselves. They'd start a business and "build that." They aren't
going to be able to take care of themselves or negotiate better
prices or healthcare or something.
"who are they?"
They are the vast majority of prostitutes. I know there are parts
of Vegas where you can find 2000$ hookers who at least look clean
and happy. They are not the vast majority of prostitutes who live
in the under-world. If you are addicted to heroine you make moronic
commercial decisions, like paying 50$ for a product that slowly
kills you.

I have a relative that post stuff on Facebook from progressive
orgs that call for boycotting businesses they don't like. The
really want to hurt the business, but they know that if they just
quite buying stuff there that it wouldn't make a difference, they
try to force others to do it. I used to regularly send stuff to
their kid from Amazon, until they called for a boycott against
Amazon, at which point I thought, no more shit for your kid from
me.

I used to regularly send stuff to their kid from Amazon,
until they called for a boycott against Amazon, at which point I
thought, no more shit for your kid from me.

See I'm the type of asshole who would keep sending their kid but
as well as them stuff from Amazon, and continue doing it no matter
how many times they tell me in their ever so self-riteous holier
than thou way about their Amazon boycott. But I'm kind of a
dick.

I'm sure you could find whores and pimps who operate on strictly
libertarian principles - no force, no fraud, adults only.

At the same time, there is a strong underground which doesn't
respect these libertarian ideas, and which recruits underage,
defrauded, and coerced women and girls into prostitution. A
government enforcement agency which devoted its resources to this
underground would never lack for work.

In MA, hand gun sales are effectively against the law, so the
guy wanting to buy a hand gun in Boston often has to resort to
doing business with some very sketchy people to acquire the tools
to defend himself.

In VT, that is not the case, and people buy their guns from
reputable sales channels.

Get rid of the prohibition on prostitution, and the ability of
guys who point a gun at a 14 year old and force them to walk the
streets to earn a living off of it will be greatly curtailed, most
clients will prefer to go to Lady Sally's brothel where the times
are more fun, the chance of getting robbed and picking up exotic
diseases is much lower.

I can't weigh in on the topic of whether most prostitutes are
poor, dirty, drug addicted women, or not, since I have never been
around that business, or its employees.

But I sure as hell do not think it should be illegal.

Again, who are they? And another question: How is placing
them in jail to be brutalized or humiliated supposed to help
them?

This. This is really the only point that needs to be made.
Prohibition is always worse than the what it is prohibiting. It
didn't work with booze, didn't work with drugs, doesn't work with
prostitution. That is if you consider 'works' to be an improvement,
which is my interpretation.

At its most basic I would say it boils down to: if you truly
believe the "my body, my choice" mantra, then it entails just that.
The freedom to choose to prostitute it out, have an abortion, have
kids until your uterus falls out, commit suicide, use birth
control, get tattoos, use drugs- whatever you choose so long as you
are not infringing on the rights and pocketbooks of others- should
be your choice.

Easy: it isn't a choice when you're infringing on the rights of
a yet-to-be-born human being. Abortion is a Holocaust, with no
greedy ethnic groups standing by to puplicize it and make money off
of it.

But if personhood doesn't begin at conception, then no one's
rights are being infringed upon. A collection of cells does not a
person make. I'd go with something a bit more tied to brain
activity. I'm sure you disagree, of course.

Aborting a pre-pain receptor/brain function zygote with the
morning after pill is little different in morality or effect than
exfoliating. Once it hits brain function and develops pain
receptors, the morality becomes much more gray.

The latest prolife initiative is to ban abortions for
pain-capable fetuses. This is opposed by the choicer crowd as an
intolerable interference with choice. It would in fact represent an
improvement over the status quo. Currently, most states allow the
killing of such fetuses and the federal courts may still declare it
a "constitutional right."

What I'm trying to say is that the abortion status quo is
currently skewed heavily in an extremely "prochoice" position -
which ought to annoy the professed moderates.

"Abortion is a Holocaust, with no greedy ethnic groups standing
by to puplicize it and make money off of it."
I don't like the holocaust industry, but calling an ethnic group
"greedy"(that's not what it's about) and implying that it simply
"stood by" crosses the fucking line. Fuck you.

I have to agree with Liberty on this one. Prostitution should be
legal. That does not change the fact that violence and coercion are
part and parcel of the industry, and making it legal doesn't
instantaneously transform all those who have been psychologically
brutalized into rational agents of free will. Seems some here are
trying to whitewash the nasty business.

and making it legal doesn't instantaneously transform
all those who have been psychologically brutalized into rational
agents of free will.

That's true, and it would be naive to claim otherwise. The whole
thesis of the article was that the quicker legalization happens the
quicker the end of current brutalization will come, and the quicker
one can begin on transforming the industry.

Where it's fully legal, yes, a significant chunk of it certainly
is "all Pretty Woman, upscale and genteel."

It's the same contention people think of when thinking of
legalized drugs. That somehow places will be full of crackhouses.
Have you been to Amsterdam? As you walk or bike (can't drive most
places last time I was there) there's nothing violent or rundown or
anything but exactly what you think it's not.

You are implying that violence and coercion are somehow inherent
in the industry. But how can that be the case? when, as you can see
for yourself where prostitution is completely legal, the violence
stops for legitimate businesses.

You're making same irrational arguments drug warriors use, that
violence is part of the business. But that is merely a
consequence of being an illegitimate business or
pushed underground by law, and certainly not part of the
profession. How then, would you explain, the drastically different
results in countries that have legalized/fully decriminalized? It
is exactly the same situation with prostitution, as I have shown
you above with just a few examples.

English is the only language I know, so I really don't know how
to make this more clear. I'll try one last time. My post said
"violence and coercion are part of the industry NOW." yes, that
means now. Legalization of prostitution would remove some, perhaps
a significant portion, of the violence and coercion, and that would
be a wonderful thing. I understand the consequences of prohibition.
On a related note, just like legalizing pot will not end the
illegal drug trade and its violence, because there are other drugs,
part of the prostitution business involves things that should never
be legal, and won't go away with legalization.

Very true. Legalizing prostitution won't eradicate the darker
parts of it such as pervs who want 12 yr old girls and authentic
snuff films since that will remain illegal. I like to think it
would free up the cops to go after the more insidious elements and
maybe even free up the legal prostitutes to turn in those who were
doing true trafficking.

One could compare exploitation of and violence against
horizontal entrepreneurs in countries where such traffic is illegal
with that in jurisdictions where such business is legal and open to
see how effective criminalization really is in protecting those
engaged in the business.

Fuck you, you race hustling piece of shit. Turning a piece on
prostitution into a treatise on the victimization of transgender
people was OT enough. Take your race card, roll it up really tight,
and shove it up your ass.

I'm not sure what to make of sentiments like yours. Don't you
feel even the slightest hint of schadenfreude in handing ideologues
a delicious platter of irony? I don't know whether Grant is concern
trolling with statements like these, but I enjoy seeing leftists'
supposed causes célèbre shoved back into their faces when their
policies run counter to their hand-wringing theatrics.

Yes, I often see perfectly normal posters here become batshit
insane when they encounter 'dirty hippies', 'hipsters', atheists or
indeed anyone who doesn't regard guns, football and machine tools
as the apex of civilization.

It's kind of a shame, really.

I used to think that libertarianism was really the common sense
choice for most people, and I wondered why it is so completely
marginalized as a belief system, when so many profess to agree with
most of its stated aims.

Since I started lurking here, I no longer wonder. Curmudgeons
just aren't sexy.

I think it's more that some people feel a need to attach a label
to everyone. I've heard before that a lot of people on the right
and left desire to place everyone into boxes, and libertarians
don't fit those boxes. Turns out that sort of person exists in
libertarianism as well, and the desire to place people into neat
ideological boxes is just as strong.

If someone else is either paying your bill outright (CMS) or
private (Private Third-Party Insurance, where they pay ~80% of the
bill), for your private, voluntary health* decisions and
the resultant consequences, then they have every moral,
medical, legal, and fiduciary right to dictate your behaviour** and
care.

*Health == the decisions you make on a daily basis
managing the congenital cards you have been dealt.

I am not sure if I understand you (perhaps a clause is missing
here?) but how is expecting a woman expecting her insurance to pay
for a her birth control any different than a horribly overweight
person expecting insurance to pay for their heart medication.

How would one avoid being a 'pinkotarian' short of either:
A:not buying insurance and refusing all government
assistance?
B: never needing any medical care?

I am not sure if I understand you (perhaps a clause is missing
here?) but how is a woman expecting her insurance to pay for a her
birth control any different than a horribly overweight person
expecting insurance to pay for their heart medication?

How would one avoid being a 'pinkotarian' short of either:
A:not buying insurance and refusing all government
assistance?
B: never needing any medical care?

a woman expecting her insurance to pay for a her birth
control == (barring sexual assault) lifestyle, as per my
definition of health. Unless you believe in the stork. This is not
limited to women, by the by, as men can contract STD's quite easily
as well.

Does not equal:

a horribly overweight person expecting insurance to pay for
their heart medication? == the etiology of the essential
hypertension can be potentiated by obesity, which may or may not be
under the control of the patient. Also depends on the type of
obesity (fluid retention, excess muscle mass, etc.)

A bad ticker can kill you, and may not be related to weight (I
did say congenital meaning "born with it". Can you control
your heart rate by sheer will? Show me one, one person
that died from a lack of sexual contact.

How would one avoid being a 'pinkotarian' short of
either:
A:not buying insurance and refusing all government
assistance?
B: never needing any medical care?

A: Pay for it yourself, or accept the terms of the employer if
the employer tells you to: stop smoking, eat better, lose weight,
or anything else that can mitigate the price of medical insurance.
CMS also. Insurance is for situations where the problem is out of
the control of the insured.

You prevaricated a bit there when you wrote that obesity 'may or
may not be under the control of the patient'.

I am sure there are numerous medical conditions that can cause
people to become overweight, but I have known a whole bunch of fat
people in my life, and all of them ate way too fucking much, which
is definitely a lifestyle issue. The fact that this lifestyle
choice results in death doesn't make it any more my problem than
Sandra Fluke's sex life is my problem.

But I agree about buying your own insurance and screwing the
ridiculous employer based health plans with all of their attendant
annoyances. I also saved money when I switched, which surprised
me.

You prevaricated a bit there when you wrote that obesity
'may or may not be under the control of the patient'.

Medically valid and accurate (I'm a physician, DO and surgeon
specifically). There was no prevarication or goalpost moving.

I am sure there are numerous medical conditions that can
cause people to become overweight

There are. Many.

but I have known a whole bunch of fat people in my life, and
all of them ate way too fucking much, which is definitely a
lifestyle issue.

So have I. Many of them were my patients requiring surgical
intervention. Define "too much", and what did they eat? You are
aware people do require food to eat, no? And whoever is
paying for their medical care has every right to tell them to lose
weight, change their diet, and get the problem fixed.

The fact that this lifestyle choice results in death doesn't
make it any more my problem than Sandra Fluke's sex life is my
problem.

"Define "too much", and what did they eat? You are aware
people do require food to eat, no? "

Too much: 3500+ calories a day.

What they eat: Donuts, 4 egg omelettes with extra cheese, fried
chicken; typical American food in too great a quantity. And of
course there is the whole 'never exercising at all' bit that is
usually mixed in there.

I do see your point, mind. I just have trouble believing that
most fat people are fat because they haven't any choice in the
matter, even though I don't have any evidence for this that isn't
anecdotal.

And I really don't care what they do if their lifestyle makes
them happy. Some fat people are gourmands who contribute to culture
through cooking and food writing. More power to them.

I just think that paying to keep willingly obese people alive is
every bit as much a waste of MY money as helping women pay for
birth control.

Sounds good to me, stop any insurance or government healthcare
benefits for people who are too fat. Also, none for rock climbers,
skiers, or softball players who are injured playing at their
favorite sport. Nothing for joggers whose knees go bad or drivers
hurt in car accidents. Pregnant and having a kid? No obstetrics
coverage - you could have prevented that pregnancy. Got food
poisoning? Hey, you weren't careful enough in your dining choices.
Leukemia? You have electricity, right? Scientific studies have
linked leukemia to low level 60 Hz electromagnetic radiation. Tough
on you.

stop any insurance or government healthcare benefits for
people who are too fat.

Agreed. Except they are medical care benefits, meaning
a good or service. Health is their problem and their
choice if the condition can be directly and demonstrably linked to
lifestyle as opposed to a congenital condition.

Also, none for rock climbers, skiers, or softball players
who are injured playing at their favorite sport.

Injuries happen even at the professional level. They also don't
require another actor. In the case of team sports, you are insuring
against the other players and their negligence.

Nothing for joggers whose knees go bad

Degenerative joint disease is not dependent on jogging. If DX'd.
before they jog, then I agree.

or drivers hurt in car accidents.

Can't control other drivers; you are insuring against someone
else's negligence.

This is actionable and dependent on the proprietor.
Cross-contamination can be proven for damages. However, how far do
you want to go to prove damages from infection via sexual contact,
for either male or female?

What I'm driving at is that there are many risks that are
collectivized right now. Following that, if we want to stop
collectivizing some of the risks, how do we decide which quit
subsidizing and how do we go about applying these decisions to
individuals.

Your responses above sound like setting up a system that is a
bureaucrat's wet dream. Are you kidding, or do you believe the
stuff you mention actually makes sense in the real, hopefully more
libertarian, world?

What I'm driving at is that there are many risks that are
collectivized right now. Following that, if we want to stop
collectivizing some of the risks, how do we decide which quit
subsidizing and how do we go about applying these decisions to
individuals.

This is precisely the argument for centrally planned medical
care. Since we cannot roll back what is already covered, just cover
the whole damn thing. Like folks above have argued in various
incarnations. I'm tired of fighting a losing battle when people
will not admit they are 100% responsible for
their choices for either side of THE KULTURE WARZ! coin.

Your responses above sound like setting up a system that is
a bureaucrat's wet dream. Are you kidding, or do you believe the
stuff you mention actually makes sense in the real, hopefully more
libertarian, world?

All of them are demonstrable in the real world.
My point is that a free-market oriented medical care
system depends on each actor assuming their own risk. The American
People will not do that. Enjoy the Pinkotarian medical care to come
where every social issue-y medical care concern is covered.

Also, the act of eating (in normal, functional people), or food
preparation done independently, does not require another actor. My
logic is solid and demonstrable; you just don't like the sad
truth.

Not at all, but the term insurance has been bastardized
beyond anything like the original, dictionary definition.

"Insurance" means now (and has meant for a while) "payment
assistance". That's my point. I'm not for illegal prostitution, and
unless I am treating a patient where it is my direct concern, one's
sex life doesn't concern me either. Until I am mandated to
pay for it (and men's sexual health is not covered one scintilla in
the mandate regs).

However, and I have railed against centralized medical care for
years on these threads (I live in a former Soviet bloc
country now), when people will not admit the simple truth
that sex is a lifestyle decision, and totally under
their control under consensual circumstances and yet
expect others to pay for something that is not
demonstrably necessary to survive, the battle is lost for any sense
of free market medicine.

People take my argument and think I am prude. Hardly. I simply
am demonstrating, by strict medical definition, that sexual
behaviour is lifestyle and should not be covered. Because
most, if not all, people who read and comment here have sex, NOW
they are gonna get pissy and accept centralized care.

Also, not one scintilla of men's sexual health is mandated
coverage absent ED drugs (I'll have to check again on those just to
make sure. I don't think so, but Medicare and private insurance
does cover them AFAIK).

These are legitimate insurance in most cases, as no man intends
(that I know of) to become impotent and ED/impotency has many
distinct causes, outside of being secondary to an related primary
condition, and some of them are lifestyle dependent (those
shouldn't be covered).

Birth control is like elective surgery. You may not like the
alternative, but if obtaining it is too expensive, you can abstain.
There are no other bodily chemistries or metabolisms involved like
with diet/health/genetics, etc. No sex, no babies.

And I managed to buy my own bc for years despite the whole
starving student situation I had going. No matter how its phrased,
I just do not buy into any argument (besides rape) where bc should
be covered by everyone else.

I'm on a libertarian-leaning web page that is discussing
prostitution and if all the orange wasn't around I'd swear some of
these posts would be fodder being spat from a
neo-conservative/anti-porn feminist cluckfest. I see smidgeons of
reason- beyond that it's mostly a pile of sticky fucking
morality-slash-elitist doodoo.

Yup, let's make it legal. A nasty, filthy, rotten, and
disgusting business of sexual pleasure that is a means of cash only
for the retarded dumbshits. Fuck, professional sex work may as well
languish in the prisons and wallow under chains of stereotypes if
even Libertarians can't escape the Puritan clutch.

Either some of these posters are under 23 and still trying to
figure out what reason is or I'm a goddamn ultra-Libertarian on the
fringe.

We are an organization of over 80 survivors of sex
trafficking/prostitution. We are not fighting 'against' sex
workers, we are fighting for all survivors. Nothing makes you a
stronger feminist than having survived the sex industry. We are in
favor of the nordic model of legislation, which attacks the demand
which fuels the sex trafficking engine. We believe strongly that no
woman should ever be arrested for being in prostitution, and that
it should be a crime to profit off another's sexual exploitation,
or to use those in prostitution.

Advocating the criminalisation of sex worker's clients and the
people they work with, but not sex workers themselves, EXPLICITLY
denies the ecistance of sex workers making a voluntary choice,
which is no different from denying their existence.

Claiming to be not against sex workers whilst advocating making
criminals out of everybody they do business with, is like claiming
not to be against factory workers whilst making criminals out of
everybody who employs factory workers or buys products made in
factories, regardless of whether the purchasers bought from
employment factories or slave labour factories.

By talking about the conflation between voluntary and
involuntary Gira EXPLICITLY acknowledges slavery's existence. It's
narcissistic to conflate not being talked about with being
"ignored" when the article was about a real war being waged on sex
workers by the advocates of criminalisation.

Did you actually read what she wrote? And yet you expect people
to read what you have written and linked to. Perhaps people can
"read" those articles like you read Gira's and misrepresent it like
you have.

There are women that have "actually been there" and don't agree
with what you say or your legal agenda, so saying that you have
been there doesn't make you right and Gira wrong.

Not that you actually pointed out anything that Gira said that
was incorrect, which would have been more useful than "I'm right
because I say so, and Gira should be ignored because I say so."

"Instead of listening to Gira Grant on the issue -- perhaps it
would be better to listen to women like us, who've actually been
there?"

Using your victim status to connect men and women who wish to
legally sell their personal sexual services to criminal and
socially-offensive behavior is an outrage to me.

I feel zero sense of compassion on people who use their victim
status to tear down honest people who just so happen to have a
general association with a category that has an abusive fringe.
This is no different than victims of parental abuse advocating
AGAINST parenthood. You should be ashamed, frankly. Your ignorance
is disturbing.

FOCUS on sex trafficking WITHOUT stigmatizing the professional
sex worker who engages in his/her business honestly and
circumspectly. THEN and ONLY then will your specific org have my
support.

Let us also shut down parenting because some parents are scumbag
abusers of their children.

Way to play the victim card and look like an ignorant douche in
the process.

It's people like YOU who are destroying the capacity for ethical
theory to assist those in the sex business. You assist the pimp and
trafficker when you alienate those who actually WISH to work as a
professional because in doing so the true professional that can
create an ethical and violence-free work environment through
developing standards and positive relations with the public MUST
operate secretly to avoid detection because of the social hatred
your type engenders.

The responses to my post are as ridiculous as I expected. News
flash: There's no shame in being a victim. It means something bad
has happened to you - that's it.

In Oslo rape has gone down by 48 percent since the introduction
of the Nordic model -- which means its never a crime to be in
prostitution, but its always a crime to buy others in prostitution
or make a profit off another's prostitution. Scandinavia has the
highest degree of sexual freedom in the world, the laws don't
restrict sexual freedom -- just sex trafficking.

"News flash: There's no shame in being a victim. It means
something bad has happened to you - that's it"

Nobody argued that it was shameful. But you are using your
"victim" status to advocate more than the very obvious position
that slavery and rape are wrong - we already have laws against
those and have for a very long time. You are advocating and
supporting the criminalisation of consensual behavior -
prostitution. It would be like a victim of a homosexual rape
advocating that consensual homosexual sex be made illegal and
claiming there is no difference between the two, and then saying
consenting homosexual sex is the cause of homosexual rape, as you
try and imply with the study you cite.

"Scandinavia has the highest degree of sexual freedom in the
world, the laws don't restrict sexual freedom -- just sex
trafficking."

Criminalising consensual paid sex is THE definition of a
restriction of sexual freedom that goes beyond criminalising rape
and slavery.

So in the Nordic model can a prostitute be made to turn in her
johns? If so that is hardly a protection of the sex worker- for it
forces her to go against her own moral code of protecting her
business partners.

How can prosecuting those who she rely's on for business be good
for her?